RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03918
							INDEX CODE:  110.00
    							COUNSEL:  , ESQ.
    							HEARING DESIRED:  YES
	
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The general discharge he received is inequitable because it was based on lack of evidence (Article 15 dated 18 June 2003, Letters of Reprimand (LOR) dated 9 July 2003 and 2 October 2002, and a Report of Individual Counseling dated 30 September 2002) or for twice oversleeping due to over scheduling evening college classes.  

Applicant submits no supporting documentation.  Applicant’s submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 March 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of 6 years.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4), with a date of rank of 28 August 2002.  He was reduced to the grade of airman first class (E-3), with a date of rank of 18 June 2003, pursuant to an Article 15.  He received two Enlisted Performance Reports closing 15 November 2001 and 15 November 2002, in which the overall evaluations were 4 (5 being the highest rating).

On 17 October 2001, he fraudulently presented a form to an apartment complex manager in order to regain possession of a $70.00 deposit.  For this incident, he received an LOR. 

On 15 September 2002 and 27 September 2002, he was 20 minutes late for work.  For these incidents, he received a Record of Individual Counseling.  

On 29 September 2002, he failed to report to his place of duty.  For this incident, he received an LOR.

On 20 January 2003, he was charged with disorderly conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces while at or near the Mandalay Bay casino in Las Vegas.  For this incident, punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), was imposed.  He received a suspended reduction to airman first class, $250 per month for two months forfeiture of his pay and a reprimand.  

On 16 May 2003 and 17 May 2003, he left his appointed place of duty without authority.  For these incidents, his suspended reduction was vacated.  

On 12 June 2003, he was disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer.  For this incident, he received an LOR.  

On 12 August 2003, the applicant’s commander initiated discharge proceedings against him under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49, for minor disciplinary infractions.  The applicant was notified of his commander’s recommendation and that a general discharge was being recommended.  He was advised of his rights; he consulted counsel and submitted statements in his own behalf.  In a legal review of the discharge case file, the staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended that he be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge and concurred with the commander that the applicant not be considered for probation and rehabilitation.  On 25 August 2003, the discharge authority directed that he be discharged with a general discharge.  Subsequently, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Misconduct – Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions) and received a general (under honorable conditions) discharge.  He served 3 years, 5 months, and 13 days on active duty. 

On 7 September 2004, the Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed and denied applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied.  DPPRS states that based upon the documentation in the file, they conclude that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and that the applicant did not identify any errors or injustices in the discharge processing.  The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel highlights applicant’s 41 months of commendable service and provides discussion on some of the applicant’s discipline infractions.  However, the applicant offers no excuse for the behavior that resulted in the Article 15 on 20 January 2003 but he requests that the offense be recognized as an off duty minor disciplinary infraction.  If civilian authorities had prosecuted the offense, punishment would not have been as severe.

Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After careful consideration of the applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we see no evidence that would warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service.  Other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to believe that the information in his discharge case file is erroneous, that his substantial rights were violated, or that his commanders abused their discretionary authority.  However, should the applicant provide evidence pertaining to his post service activities, testimonials of friends and responsible citizens who know him, he may, of course, submit a request for clemency at a later time.  

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.  

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 1 March 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-03918:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Dec 04.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 13 Jan 05.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jan 05.
     Exhibit E.  Counsel’s Letter, dated 16 Feb 05.